Michel Lamoller's space and time-bending tautochronos project

In his series 'tautochronos', Berlin-based artist and photographer Michel Lamoller takes multiple pictures of the same scene at different times, before physically combining the prints and using a scalpel to cut through the layers. In doing so, Lamoller's 'layerscapes' offer a vision of time and space that would be impossible in a conventional single exposure. His work is hard to describe in words - click through this slideshow to read our Q & A and take a look at his work.

*** IMHO *** Photography is a 2D representation of 2D or 3D subjects / objects. Photographers have been cutting & splicing photographs for more than 100 years. While Lamollers work is EXTREMELY well executed, there is NOTHING in the examples shown which cannot also be created / reproduced in Photoshop / Barco Creator or similarly capable software. In fact, it can ALL be done on computer quicker, cleaner AND BETTER in 2D representation than THE MOST dexterous person on the planet would be able to achieve without computer.Pro Photographer - 45yrs photography experience - own studio 37yrs - computer graphics / image retouching 34yrs

I have not see the work in person, but suspect the physical/tactile alteration of surface is important. And that it may take longer than to acheive the same visual effect digitally, may, in fact, be a positive.

Great idea but, personally, I find these examples missing the artistic potential of illustrating interesting connections in time and the same location, or connections in space at different times. The obvious use of layering is distracting.

The physical excavation through surfaces seems a compelling gesture - I assume this would be better disclosed when viewing the actual print(s). Were this to be a product of Photoshop layering, it would, to me, lose appeal.

Not photography in the traditional sense of capturing a viewpoint. At least not a technical geek's sense of what photography is. This is abstract, legitimate, art. Not only extremely complex to put together (requring much skill on the part of the artist), but also a great play on the metaphor of peeling back the layers on an onion. Although personally I don't really see much of the time-shift aspect, so perhaps different subject matter would bring that more to the fore.

So in other words, this doesn't jive with the majority of DPReview thinking. Not enough brick walls to detect vignetting and barrel distortion.

Whether it be done by hand with physical media or by digital, the compositions are excellent, the technique, exquisitely handled. Exquisite eye candy belittles it but it is very pleasant and very well done. I don't get any messages here (which is Ok, because not all art requires a concept) but I do enjoy it! :-) Seems more (entirely?) about technique than subject matter, but I don't know the artist and what he's trying to express if anything. Its not quite David Hockney's "Pear Blossom Highway" using lots of polaroids to make up pieces of one scene. There are some street "painters"/artists with chalk where piece of the street turn into almost trompe l'oil (pardon my French, literally!) holes in the ground, or vaulted arches - and there' also that guy (artist) from out West (I forget his name, but his works are everywhere, no, not Ansel Adams or any other photographer, he probably uses either paints, etc.) who draws/paints? camouflaged animals. Interesting work - "I smell bacon!" ;-)

I do find the method of excavating image compelling, and it does not strike me as gimmicky, as some suggest. Physically altering photographic prints is a well established vein in the history of art photography. I certainly do agree with some that certain works here are stronger than others. But overall these physical alterations of surfaces successfully invite investigation and contemplation.

Thanks DPR for posting these. I'm not going to enter the debates in the preceding posts about whether it's art, photography, useful, pointless or whatever. As far as I'm concerned those debates are pointless because they revolve around classifying these pieces. They simply are as they are, and I simply enjoyed them. Original, different stuff from my own, and entertaining.

More predictable than the sun rising, the collection of people here calling someone else's work nonsense and worthless. Probably the same people who walk into a modern art museum claiming, "I can do this...what's the big deal?" Well, here's the thing: you did NOT do it. Someone else did, and this is the case here, too. Maybe one day your pictures of puppies, cute kids, sunsets, and flower macros will be in an art gallery, but until then, try to be more respectful and understanding. Maybe you'll actually learn something.

Thank you Jeff for taking the words right out of my fingers. So predictable are those here on this forum. The work presented here has forethought and vision, not just a click of a shutter that yields the next cat, flower, sunset, blah, blah and on and on.

Indeed, Jeff. The artist's work is definitely not traditional photography, but more of photomontage. The picture of the man clinging/merging into the brick wall was quite fascinating, and difficult to execute, but the overall effect of surreality is just about right. Some of the other images aren't as successful. This is an artist saying to himself, what can I do differently with the camera as an artistic tool? Something rather unexpected, it appears.But if your idea of photographic art is a single image perfectly exposed and processed, yet similarly jarring, perhaps you'd like Art Wolfe's Human Canvas series. There, the camera records the creation of artwork on/with the human form. Perhaps painters should be as outraged as the photographers here are.

... although let's not forget, both art and photography are subjective and everyone is welcome to their views. Personally, I didn't like these or the process, but each to their own. I think it's ok to say 'I don't like these' as long as its polite; and for people to lecture others for not being impressed or admirable ... Well, that's unfair.

Politeness is the key here. Although I'm more favorably inclined to the artist's work here, if I weren't I would not disparage the artist himself for presenting, and I would hope that others would be similarly measured in their invective. That is the crux of what Jeff is saying.

The normal etiquette among the more considerate posters is to compliment or encourage whenever comment has not been sought from you. Where you disagree or express dislike for another artist's creative viewpoint, such comment is backed up with fair access to your own work. That's essential to avoid being just another internet 'hater'.

Too many people use the internet as a form of therapy and a vent for self esteem issues, with little regard for other artists and photographers efforts.

That's not so say there isn't a market for ignoramuses spouting criticism to rile up an audience. Whole TV series revolve around that concept. But the 'critics' aren't people you would admire, or necessarily want to know.

@Eric: While I mainly agree with you comment, this part: "Where you disagree or express dislike for another artist's creative viewpoint, such comment is backed up with fair access to your own work." is kind of completely off in my opinion.

I mean, one does not have to be a painter to like or dislike a painting. Or to have the right to hang one (or not) on his wall. Or a photo. Or a photo-montage like this.

However, expressing opinions politely is what makes sense, and what makes a discussion work. As an artist you want (or you should want) to hear the criticism as well as constructive opinions, and know how to benefit form it. Of course "I hate it" is not criticism, as "I love it" is not "positive feedback". It's only that the "love" ones we like, and appreciate them, as they grow our pride.

@badi: You're right that opinion of any kind has more validity [and value] if it is backed by some reasoned argument. But 'I like it' is of course a positive and if we accept that affirmation is in itself a constructive thing this does at least give it SOME value. The opposite 'blind criticism' is of course merely negative, so intrinsically has no value. Other than that is reflecting badly on the manners of the would-be critic.

@Jeff Seltzer: "Maybe one day your pictures of puppies, cute kids, sunsets, and flower macros will be in an art gallery..." Why do I feel that this was directed at me? :D You ticked off the majority of my "collection" in one sentence. Guess I'm the poster child for "wanna be photog." LOL! (fyi - no sarcasm here. Honestly thought it was funny.)

@cris: well, actually my idea was that "I like it" or "I hate it" are in essence the same = no value. And we consider the "i like it" to be constructive, just because it pleases us. And it does please us. But that does not change the fact that one "I like it" from AnonymousX has no more value that "I hate it" from the same online user.

I am not arguing with the fact that, more often, "I hate it" comments come from haters or trolls, and the "I like it" from lovely persons. But we share the same internet :)

So, because I don't upload any of my work to the forums, I don't have the right to say I don't like someone else's work? As badi rightly says, one does not have to be a painter to like or dislike a painting.

Indeed, one doesn't have to be a painter to like or dislike a painting. No one is expecting you to paint.

If you are going to make disparaging or discouraging public comments on another person's work, it would help a lot if you tried. Let others see the results of your efforts to put your criticism in context.

It's not a question of rights. It's a question of being fair, as you might rightly expect to be treated yourself.

:) it's an interesting discussion, so I'll continue a bit.Being fair has nothing to do with liking a work of art, or just any work. You can like one camera design, and dislike another (I don't give examples not to go off-off-topic), that is my right to choose the one i like, as well as to say that i don't like some model (and why). I don't have to try to make a camera myself, realize how hard it is, and say they are both nice.

As to painting/taking photos/sculpting/etc every one has his values and tastes. I like both abstract and realistic paintings, but when i look at one painting i like it or not for what it is, i don't report it to "my skills". If i suck at drawing, it doesn't mean i have to be in wow at every ugly painting just because the painter has slightly more skill than me. I compare it to other arts.

I merely said I didn't like the work; there's nothing disparaging or discouraging about that; and again, I don't see why I have to show my work to make my comments more valid. I remain polite and civil and stand by my original statement that the technique may be clever, but the outcome, for me, is not something I like or what I find pleasing or impressive to view (more confusing ... and should we really have to explain an image; surely a good image says it all!). Guess I'm not 'arty' enough lol!

Interesting. Confusing, too. Art is supposed to speak to me, and this does, but it seems to be mostly saying "I like playing with exacto knives." ;-) Kidding aside, this seem to be much more about layers than "space and time-bending."

Also, the artists, inventors, photogs who dared to step out of the norm were once called out for pointless work. This reminds me of how some early photographers who played with separate red, green, and blue filters to create the first color images were once thought of as people wasting their time in an era of B&W.

FYI one could say ALL art is pointless. That's why it's art, it's made to be appreciated, not to be USEFUL. A painting won't get you to work, a novel won't cook your food, a song can't put a roof over your head. Is the Mona Lisa "useful"? Is watching "Romeo and Juliet" useful?

A map is useful, so should I start taking aerial photos as my "art"? That would be useful right? Would it satisfy your criteria for what photographers should do?

I appreciate the hands on approach. Makes it more intimate to me. Probably is more enjoyable having everything out in the open in front of you instead of having to use a mouse or tab, zooming in and out, clicking, dragging, etc.

Doing something like this by hand makes it more of a "one of a kind" instead of being able to mass produce it with a sterile digital file.

More like creative, thought provoking, original, fresh, etc. A photographer that's saying something with his work instead of repeating the same old photos everyone else is doing.

Whether you like his work or not, at least he's trying to be original and doing a pretty good job at it. And this could lead to bigger and better things in the future that maybe you might actually appreciate.

If people like Michel Lamoller didn't take risks, photography would be pretty boring at times.

And if you were alive when the camera first came out, you would have said, "gimmickry, not a real painter". The artist probably doesn't care if it's considered "photography" by you or anyone else. Newsflash: creative artists probably shouldn't spend time worrying if their work conforms to definitions set by others.

@"The Name is Bond" : Oh yes, the artist is definitely trying to trick you into thinking there is something creative there. Make sure you alert the world to the "gimmickry", ye? We need more protectors from "gimmickry" like you.

Any chance you can now wow us with "something substantive" of your own? Anything at all? You absolutely have to now, given your comments above.

Photoshop. GoPro. Every once in a while a product emerges that defines a category. And sometimes, it vanishes just as quickly as it arrived on the scene. This week's Throwback Thursday remembers the Flip, the pocket camcorder everyone had – until they didn't.

After a popular Facebook teaser and some studio portrait samples, Godox has finally officially released the Godox A1 smartphone flash and flash trigger. Cheap, versatile and innovative, color us intrigued.

Canon’s EOS 5D Mk IV has won the European Imaging and Sound Association’s Professional DSLR of the Year award, making this the third year in a row that the brand has beaten Nikon to the top spot in the professional camera category.

Edward Weston was one of the most influential photographers of the 20th century, and in this episode of Advancing Your Photography we learn the extreme technique he used to capture one of his most famous still life photos.

Venus Optics has announced the price and delivery date of the second lens to join its Zero-D line up: the 15mm F2 for Sony’s E mount. A lens they've dubbed, "the world's fastest 15mm rectilinear lens for full-frame."

The Canon EF 35mm F2 IS USM is an understated jewel of a lens, and one that we've enjoyed on a variety of cameras since its release almost five years ago. Its relatively small size and image stabilization make it a versatile tool for a variety of photography - check out our sample gallery.

You don't need a fancy studio or tons of gear to capture the kind of classic product photography you see in magazines. In this video, Dustin Dolby shows you how to do it with just a couple of speedlights and some know-how.

The Minolta MC Rokkor-X 40-80mm F2.8 is unlike any zoom lens you've probably ever seen. Instead of a helicoid, it uses a gearbox, and because of this it's still one of the sharpest zoom lenses out there.

If you're looking to switch to Sony, the company's new limited-time "α trade up" promotion can snag you up to $500 + trade-in value towards a brand new a9, a7 II, a7R II, or a7S II when you hand over your DSLR or mirrorless camera.

The Google Camera app exclusive to the company's own Pixel phone has been unofficially ported to other Android devices. If you're willing to take the risk of installing, you can now use features like HDR+ on the Galaxy S8, LG G6, OnePlus 5, and more.